One of the important bottlenecks to the wider adoption of planning support systems is a lack of evidence about whether they improve planning processes. In addition, existing research does not include field studies with high context validity. This paper fills this gap in the literature by reporting the results from a field study evaluating the performance of a planning support systems used for sketch planning as part of a land use planning project in metropolitan Austin, Texas, USA. Participants reported high levels of learning and dialog quality, the two chosen planning support systems performance measures. A regression analysis finds both are related to the ability of planning support systems to change participants’ perceptions. In addition, as suggested by learning theory, the planning support systems performance outcomes are significantly related to participants’ identity as a planner and meeting attendance, but are not related to gender or educational attainment. Finally, for the planning support systems studied here, participation in the planning support systems creation is less important than other factors in explaining planning support systems performance. The paper contributes to efforts to develop and implement robust measures of planning support systems performance and links concept of planning support systems performance to broader theories of learning.
AdairJG (1984) The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology69(2): 334–345. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.334.
2.
AlexanderER (1982) Design in the decision-making process. Policy Sciences14(3): 279–292.
3.
Arciniegas GAL (2012) Map-based decision support tools for collaborative land use planning. PhD, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
ArciniegasGJanssenRRietveldP (2012) Effectiveness of collaborative map-based decision support tools: Results of an experiment. Environmental Modelling & Software39: 159–175. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.02.021.
6.
ArgyrisCSchönD (1996) Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice, New York: Addison-Wesley.
BeatleyTBrowerDJLucyWH (1994) Representation in comprehensive planning: An analysis of the Austinplan process. Journal of the American Planning Association60(2): 185–196.
9.
Ben-JosephEIshiiHUnderkofflerJ (2001) Urban simulation and the luminous planning table. Journal of Planning Education and Research21(2): 196–203.
10.
BeukersEBertoliniLte BrömmelstroetM (2014) Using cost benefit analysis as a learning process: Identifying interventions for improving communication and trust. Transport Policy31: 61–72.
11.
BrailRK (2008) Planning Support Systems for Cities and Regions, Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
12.
BrailRKKlostermanRE (2001) Planning Support Systems: Integrating Geographic Information Systems, Models, and Visualization Tools, Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.
13.
CockerillKTidwellVPassellH (2004) Assessing public perceptions of computer-based models. Environmental management34(5): 609–619. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-003-0259-z.
14.
Condon P, Cavens D and Miller N (2009) Urban planning tools for climate change mitigation. Policy Focus Report. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
15.
CostanzaRRuthM (1998) Using dynamic modeling to scope environmental problems and build consensus. Environmental Management22(2): 183–195. DOI: 10.1007/s002679900095.
16.
DeyleRSlotterbackCS (2009) Group learning in participatory planning processes: An exploratory quasiexperimental analysis of local mitigation planning in Florida. Journal of Planning Education and Research29(1): 23–38.
17.
DührS (2007) The Visual Language of Spatial Planning: Exploring Cartographic Representations for Spatial Planning in Europe, The RTPI Library Series, London, New York: Routledge.
18.
DweckCSLeggettEL (1988) A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review95(2): 256.
19.
ErnsteH (2012) Framing cultures of spatial planning. Planning Practice and Research27(1): 87–101. DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2012.661194.
20.
FlaxmanM (2009) Fundamentals of Geodesign, Redlands, CA: Geodesign Summit.
21.
ForesterJ (1987) Planning in the face of conflict: Negotiation and mediation strategies in local land use regulation. Journal of the American Planning Association53(3): 303–314.
22.
ForesterJ (2006) Making participation work when interests conflict—Moving from facilitating dialogue and moderating debate to mediating negotiations. Journal of the American Planning Association72(4): 447–456.
23.
Fregonese Associates (2012) Envision Tomorrow Scenario Builder User Guide.
GeertmanS (2006) Potentials for planning support: A planning-conceptual approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design33(6): 863.
26.
GeertmanS (2008) Planning support systems: A planner’s perspective. In: BrailRK (ed.) Planning Support Systems for Cities and Regions, Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, pp. 213–230.
27.
GeertmanSStillwellJCH (2003) Planning Support Systems in Practice, Advances in Spatial Science, Berlin, New York: Springer.
28.
GeertmanSStillwellJCH (2009) Planning Support Systems Best Practice and New Methods, The GeoJournal Library, Dordrecht: Springer.
29.
Geertman S, Toppen F and Stillwell J (eds) (2013) Planning Support Systems for Sustainable Urban Development, Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Heidelberg: Springer.
30.
Grant M, Rooney K and Assasie K (2010) WA 4-55 Smart Growth and Climate Protection Policy Analysis, Task 3—Assessment of Tools. ICF International, for U.S. EPA.
HolmesDS (1971) The teaching assessment blank: A form for the student assessment of college instructors. The Journal of Experimental Education39(3): 34–38. DOI: 10.2307/20157191.
33.
Holway J, Gabbe CJ, Hebbert F, et al. (2012) Opening access to scenario planning tools. Policy Focus Report. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
34.
HopkinsLD (1999) Structure of a planning support system for urban development. Environment and Planning B-Planning & Design26(3): 333–343.
35.
HopkinsLDRamanathanRPallathucherilVG (2004) Interface for a sketch-planning workbench. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems28(6): 653–666.
36.
InnesJEBooherDE (2010) Planning With Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy, London and New York: Routledge.
37.
Jackson CJ (2008) Measurement Issues Concerning a Personality Model Spanning Temperament, Character, and Experience. In: Boyle G, Matthews G and Saklofske D (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment. Los Angels, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 73–93.
38.
Jackson CJ (2009) Jackson-5 scales of revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) and their application to dysfunctional real world outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality 43(4): 556–569.
39.
Jackson CJ (2011) How Sensation Seeking provides a common basis for functional and dysfunctional outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality 45(1): 29–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.005.
40.
JankowskiPNyergesT (2001) GIS-supported collaborative decision making: Results of an experiment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers91(1): 48–70. DOI: 10.1111/0004-5608.00233.
41.
JanssenRArciniegasGAVerhoevenJTA (2013) Spatial evaluation of ecological qualities to support interactive land-use planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design40(3): 427–446.
42.
JonesNAPerezPMeashamTG (2009) Evaluating participatory modeling: Developing a framework for cross-case analysis. Environmental Management44(6): 1180–1195.
43.
KlostermanRE (1997) Planning support systems: A new perspective on computer-aided planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research17(1): 45–54.
44.
LaveJWengerE (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Learning in Doing, Cambridge, England; New York: Cambridge University Press.
45.
LewisJDWeigertAJ (2012) The social dynamics of trust: Theoretical and empirical research, 1985–2012. Social Forces91(1): 25–31. DOI: 10.1093/sf/sos116.
46.
MarchSTSmithGF (1995) Design and natural-science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems15(4): 251–266.
47.
McElvaneyS (2012) Geodesign: Case Studies in Regional and Urban Planning, 1st ed. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.
48.
McGrathJE (1981) Dilemmatics: The study of research choices and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist25(2): 179–210.
49.
MontgomeryC (2011) Regional Planning for a Sustainable America: How Creative Programs are Promoting Prosperity and Saving the Environment, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
50.
NunnallyJCBernsteinIH (1994) Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill series in psychology, New York: McGraw-Hill.
51.
O’ConnorPJJacksonC (2008) Learning to be saints or sinners: The indirect pathway from sensation seeking to behavior through mastery orientation. Journal of Personality76(4): 733–752. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00502.x.
52.
OrumAM (1987) Power, Money & The People: The Making of Modern Austin, Austin: Texas Monthly Press.
53.
Pelzer P, Goodspeed R and te Brömmelstroet M (2015) Facilitating PSS Workshops: A Conceptual Framework and Findings from Interviews with Facilitators. In: Geertman S, Ferreira J. Jr., Goodspeed R and Stillwell J (eds.) Planning Support Systems and Smart Cities. Springer International Publishing, pp. 355–369.
54.
RasmussenBMorseLPerlmanD (2012) A Framework for Considering Climate Change in Transportation and Land Use Scenario Planning: Lessons Learned from an Interagency Pilot Project on Cape Cod, Cambridge, MA: Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, US Department of Transportation.
55.
RedburnSBussTFFosterSK (1980) How representative are mandated citizen participation processes?Urban Affairs Review15(3): 345.
56.
RogoffB (1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context, New York: Oxford University Press.
57.
SalterJDCampbellCJourneayM (2009) The digital workshop: Exploring the use of interactive and immersive visualisation tools in participatory planning. Journal of Environmental Management90(6): 2090–2101.
58.
Shamonsky DJ (2003) Tactile, spatial interfaces for computer-aided design: Superimposing physical media and computation. Unpublished PhD thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
59.
SmithELBishopIDWilliamsKJH (2012) Scenario chooser: An interactive approach to eliciting public landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning106(3): 230–243. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.03.013.
60.
SpectorPE (1992) Summated Rating Scale Construction: An Introduction, Sage University Papers Series Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
61.
SteinitzC (2012) A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design, 1st ed. Redlands, CA: Esri.
te BrömmelstroetM (2009) The relevance of research in planning support systems: A response to Janssen et al. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design36(1): 4–7.
te BrömmelstroetM (2013) Performance of planning support systems: What is it, and how do we report on it?Computers, Environment and Urban Systems41: 299–308. DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2012.07.004.
66.
te Brömmelstroet M, Pelzer P, Klerkx R, et al. (2013) Do Planning Support Systems Improve Planning? Testing the Claim in a Controlled Experiment. Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management, Utrecht, Netherlands, 2–5 July 2013.
67.
te BrömmelstroetMSchrijnenPM (2010) From planning support systems to mediated planning support: A structured dialogue to overcome the implementation gap. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design37(1): 3–20.
68.
University of Utah Metropolitan Research Center, and Fregonese Associates (2014) Envision tomorrow: A suite of urban and regional planning tools. Available at: http://www.envisiontomorrow.org/ (accessed 4 December 2014).
69.
UranOJanssenR (2003) Why are spatial decision support systems not used? Some experiences from the Netherlands. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems27(5): 511–526. DOI: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/S0198-9715(02)00064-9.
70.
Van den BeltM (2004) Mediated Modeling: A System Dynamics Approach to Environmental Consensus Building, Washington, DC: Island press.
71.
VennixJAM (1996) Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics, New York: John Wiley.
72.
VennixJAM (1999) Group model-building: tackling messy problems. System Dynamics Review15(4): 379–401.
73.
VonkGGeertmanS (2008) Improving the adoption and use of planning support systems in practice. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy1(3): 153–173.
74.
VonkGGeertmanSSchotPP (2005) Bottlenecks blocking widespread usage of planning support systems. Environment and Planning A37(5): 909–924.
75.
WassenMJRunhaarHBarendregtA (2011) Evaluating the role of participation in modeling studies for environmental planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design38(2): 338–358.
WengerE (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Learning in Doing, Cambridge, UK; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
78.
ZellnerMLLyonsLBHochCJ (2012) Modeling, learning, and planning together: An application of participatory agent-based modeling to environmental planning. URISA Journal24(1): 77–92.
79.
ZuckermanM (1979) Sensation Seeking: Beyond the Optimal Level of Arousal, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
